Livestock and meat (apro_mt)

National Reference Metadata in ESS Standard for Quality Reports Structure (ESQRS)

Compiling agency: MAFF (Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forestry)


Eurostat metadata
Reference metadata
1. Contact
2. Statistical presentation
3. Statistical processing
4. Quality management
5. Relevance
6. Accuracy and reliability
7. Timeliness and punctuality
8. Coherence and comparability
9. Accessibility and clarity
10. Cost and Burden
11. Confidentiality
12. Comment
Related Metadata
Annexes (including footnotes)
 



For any question on data and metadata, please contact: Eurostat user support

Download


1. Contact Top
1.1. Contact organisation

MAFF (Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forestry)
1.2. Contact organisation unit

Agrostatistics Department
1.5. Contact mail address

Chr. Botev Blv. 55 1040 Sofia


2. Statistical presentation Top
2.1. Data description

The livestock and meat statistics are collected under Regulation (EC) No 1165/2008 since 2009. They cover slaughtering in slaughterhouses (monthly) and other slaughtering (annual), GIP (gross indigenous production) forecast (semi-annual or quarterly data), and livestock statistics (once or twice a year), including regional statistics (annual).This template lists the questions constituting the quality report required in Article 17 of EU Regulation N°1165/2008 on livestock and meat statistics.
This quality report covers the year 2019 and all the quality indicators already reported for years 2010, 2013 and 2016.
2.2. Classification system

Not requested for reference year 2019.
2.3. Coverage - sector

Not requested for reference year 2019.
2.4. Statistical concepts and definitions

Not requested for reference year 2019.
2.5. Statistical unit

Not requested for reference year 2019.
2.6. Statistical population

Not requested for reference year 2019.
2.7. Reference area

Not requested for reference year 2019.
2.8. Coverage - Time

Not requested for reference year 2019.
2.9. Base period

Not requested for reference year 2019.


3. Statistical processing Top
3.1. Source data

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
3.2. Frequency of data collection

See item 3.2.1.
3.2.1. Reference date of the statistics

Reference date of the statistics

Livestock statistics Bovines animal Pigs Sheep Goats
November/December

01/11

01/11

01/11

01/11
November/ December - Regional

01/11

01/11

01/11

01/11
May/June      
3.3. Data collection

See item 3.3.1.
3.3.1. Production of estimates
3.3.1.1. Process for GIP forecast

Is the following information taken into account to produce the GIP forecast?

  Bovines Pigs Sheep and Goats
No forecast required for sheep and goats    
Extrapolation of known results on slaughtering
Expert assessment of the market
Expert assessment of the GIP
Models Recent changes in stocks (breeding animals) for the forecast for the longer term Recent changes in stocks (breeding animals) for the forecast for the longer term Recent changes in stocks (breeding animals) for the forecast for the longer term
Other
Other slaughtering covered by the GIP forecast


Additional comments (on the GIP forecast)
3.3.1.2. Process for estimate of other slaughtering

What significant source do you use to estimate other slaughtering?

 

Bovines

Pigs

 Sheep and Goats
Administrative information from veterinary service
Farm Survey
Consumer Survey
Coefficients based on ad hoc study
Year of calculation (Coefficients based on ad hoc study)
Discrepancy between slaughtering and estimated GIP (For instance, if overall GIP is directly estimated based on data at farm level)
Comprehensive study
Year of calculation (Comprehensive study)


Additional comments (on other slaughtering)

Farm survey = Sample survey for November data collection for all types of animal  - agricultural holdings and small units
3.4. Data validation

Not requested for reference year 2019.
3.5. Data compilation

Not requested for reference year 2019.
3.6. Adjustment

Not requested for reference year 2019.


4. Quality management Top
4.1. Quality assurance

Not requested for reference year 2019.
4.2. Quality management - assessment

Not requested for reference year 2019.


5. Relevance Top
5.1. Relevance - User Needs

See items 5.1.1, 5.1.2 and 5.1.3.
5.1.1. Main national users of the statistics on livestock and meat

The data produced under Regulation (EC) No 1165/2008 are used by the following users, in addition to being delivered to Eurostat:

  National accounts (National Accounts, including European Accounts of Agriculture) Supply balance sheets Gross nutrient balance
Main national users Livestock - Bovines
Livestock - Sheep and goats
Slaughtering - Pigs
Slaughtering - Sheep and goats
Slaughtering - Poultry
Slaughtering - Bovines
Livestock - Pigs
Other slaughtering		 Livestock - Bovines
Livestock - Pigs
Livestock - Sheep and goats
5.1.2. Other Main national users of the statistics on livestock and meat

Other Main national users of the statistics on livestock and meat, please specify:

Livestock

Bovines

 NSI, OM, OI

Pigs

 NSI, OM, OI

Sheep and goats

 NSI, OM, OI

Slaughtering

Bovines

 NSI, OM, OI

Pigs

 NSI, OM, OI

Sheep and goats

 NSI, OM, OI

Poultry

 NSI, OM, OI

GIP forecast

Bovines

 OI

Pigs

 OI

Sheep and goats

 OI

Other slaughtering

 NSI, OM, OI
5.1.3. Main international users of the statistics on livestock and meat

Does the department in charge of livestock and meat statistics provide data to the following international organisations at their request?

DG Agriculture and Rural Development YES
Other EU institutions YES
FAO YES
Other international ‘governmental’ organisation YES
5.2. Relevance - User Satisfaction

See item 5.2.1.
5.2.1. User satisfaction survey

User satisfaction survey

  Answer
Have you already carried out a survey on user satisfaction?
If yes, how long ago (months)?
If yes, are the results available to the public?
5.3. Completeness

Not requested for reference year 2019.
5.3.1. Data completeness - rate

Not requested for reference year 2019.


6. Accuracy and reliability Top
6.1. Accuracy - overall

See items 6.1.1. and 6.1.2.
6.1.1. Thresholds and legal derogation

Thresholds and legal derogation (Article 4 of regulation N°1165/2008)

Livestock statistics Total number of animals if under the legal threshold in December 2015 (Number of Head)
Bovine animals (under 1.5 million head)
527 194
Pigs (under 3 million head)
491 814
Sheep (under 500 000 head)
1 280 983
Goats (under 500 000 head)
228 493
6.1.2. Quality control survey

Quality control survey

Quality control survey (livestock statistics)
Quality control survey (meat statistics)
6.2. Sampling error

See items 6.2.1.1. and 6.2.1.2.
6.2.1. Sampling error - indicators

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
6.2.1.1. Coefficient of variation achieved for the main variables (only for sample survey)

Coefficient of variation achieved for the main variables (only for sample survey)

 Livestock statistics  Bovine animals  Pigs  Sheep  Goats
 Livestock - Nov./Dec. (in %)
1.4

0.2

2.03

7.3
 Livestock - Nov./Dec. Regional (in %)  
 

Bovine BG31-3.7%; BG32-2.3%; BG33-2.7%; BG34-2.7%; BG35-4.2%; BG36-3.1%;
 
 

Pigs BG31-1.1%; BG32-0.3%; BG33-0.3%; BG34-0.2%; BG35-1.8%; BG36-0.5%;
 
 

Sheep&Goats-BG31-5.5%; BG32-4.7%; BG33-6.2%; BG34-2.5%; BG35-7.4%; BG36-3.3%;
 
 

Sheep&Goats-BG31-5.5%; BG32-4.7%; BG33-6.2%; BG34-2.5%; BG35-7.4%; BG36-3.3%;
 Livestock - May/June (in %)       
 Assessment method        
 Further comment

The values for CV for regional data can not be shown in this cell format.

      

 

 Slaughtering statistics  Bovine animals  Pigs  Sheep  Goats  Poultry
 Slaughtering statistics (in %)

0

0

0

0

0
 Assessment method          
 Further comment          
6.2.1.2. Sampling rate

Sampling rate

  Non-relevant * 1. Frame (Number of units) 2. Sample size (Number of units) Sampling rate ((2/1) x 100%)
Slaughterhouses

107

107

100
Cattle farms

27428

4860

17.7
Pig farms

6659

841

12.6
Sheep farms

21697

4585

21.1
Goat farms

12147

1986

16.3
Animal farms **

64618
9372
14.5%


* If the main information is drawn from a census, a register or a source other than a survey, the first column is ticked ** Animal farms: if the survey is designed for all livestock together
6.3. Non-sampling error

See item 6.3.2.1.
6.3.1. Coverage error

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
6.3.1.1. Over-coverage - rate

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
6.3.1.2. Common units - proportion

Not requested for reference year 2019.
6.3.1.3. Coverage error for each process

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
6.3.2. Measurement error

See item 6.3.2.1.
6.3.2.1. Checklist on measurement errors

Whereas coherence refers to the data disseminated, the measurement errors refer to the data collection.

Slaughtering:

Young cattle and calves recorded separately
Goats actually recorded
Carcass weight recorded fully compliant (Compliant with Regulation (EC) No 1165/2008)
Even for poultry
Poultry slaughtering recorded in tonnes and head
6.3.3. Non response error

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
6.3.3.1. Unit non-response - rate

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
6.3.3.2. Item non-response - rate

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
6.3.4. Processing error

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
6.3.4.1. Imputation - rate

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
6.3.5. Model assumption error

Not requested for reference year 2019.
6.4. Seasonal adjustment

Not requested for reference year 2019.
6.5. Data revision - policy

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
6.6. Data revision - practice

Not requested for reference year 2019.
6.6.1. Data revision - average size

Not requested for reference year 2019.


7. Timeliness and punctuality Top
7.1. Timeliness

The livestock and meat statistical surveys are conducted according to the requirements of Regulation (EC) 1165/2008 and the National Statistical Programme.
7.1.1. Time lag - first result

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
7.1.2. Time lag - final result

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
7.2. Punctuality

We do some efforts to provide access to the data at the same time for the national users and Eurostat.
7.2.1. Punctuality - delivery and publication

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.


8. Coherence and comparability Top
8.1. Comparability - geographical

See items 8.1.2 to 8.1.15.
8.1.1. Asymmetry for mirror flow statistics - coefficient

Not requested for reference year 2019.
8.1.2. Comparability – geographical Calves

Is there any difference between the above referred definitions based on the animals age and/or intended use with the ones used by the respondents in your Member State?


If yes, please describe briefly the difference in the definition


Geographical correction

Do you apply correction of your data in order to meet the EU definition? (Yes/No)

 No

IF YES correction of your data is applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Value /Method of calculation

Briefly describe the value of the correction or of the coefficient?

 

Frequency of the revision of the values

Please specify the last time that this value was updated?

 

Main source used

Please define the data source used for the data

 

IF NO, correction of your data is not applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Is a standard operation procedure (SOP) envisaged to solve the above-mentioned differences?

Briefly describe if a correction will be implemented and if so when?

 Data correction is not envisaged.

SOP to correct the differences is not envisaged

Please explain the reasons

 

Any further comments, please provide them here
The categories calves and young cattle were introduced in Bulgaria in 2010 in the statistical questionnaires for data collection according to the requirements of Regulation (EC) № 1165/2008 and the respondents (slaughterhouses and livestock farms) refer directly the requested values ​​to the appropriate category.
8.1.3. Comparability – geographical Bulls

Is there any difference between the above referred definitions based on the castration status of the animals and the ones used by the respondents in your Member State?


If yes, please describe briefly the difference in the definition


Geographical correction

Do you apply correction of your data in order to meet the EU definition?(Yes/No)

 No

IF YES correction of your data is applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Value /Method of calculation

Briefly describe the value of the correction or of the coefficient?

 

Frequency of the revision of the values

Please specify the last time that this value was updated?

 

Main source used

Please define the data source used for the data

 

IF NO, correction of your data is not applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Is a standard operation procedure (SOP) envisaged to solve the above-mentioned differences?

Briefly describe if a correction will be implemented and if so when?

 Data correction is not envisaged.

SOP to correct the differences is not envisaged

Please explain the reasons

 

Any further comments, please provide them here

  The categories  bulls and bullocks under the above mentioned definitions are used by the Agrostistics Department at MAFF for preparation of statistics on slaughtering since 2001.
8.1.4. Comparability – geographical Buffaloes

Is there any difference between the accounting of buffaloes in the different age bovine animal categories and the above referred classes?


If yes, please describe briefly the difference in the definition


Geographical correction

Do you apply correction of your data in order to meet the EU definition? (Yes/No)

 No

IF YES correction of your data is applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Value /Method of calculation

Briefly describe the value of the correction or of the coefficient?

 

Frequency of the revision of the values

Please specify the last time that this value was updated?

 

Main source used

Please define the data source used for the data

 

IF NO, correction of your data is not applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Is a standard operation procedure (SOP) envisaged to solve the above-mentioned differences?

Briefly describe if a correction will be implemented and if so when?

 Data correction is not envisaged.

SOP to correct the differences is not envisaged

Please explain the reasons

 

Any further comments, please provide them here

  The Buffaloes bred in Bulgaria are 3.2% of all bovine animals. The data collected on them is consistent with the age distribution (cattle incl.) required by Regulation (EC) № 1165/2008.          
8.1.5. Comparability – geographical Cows

Is there any difference between the above referred definitions based on the animals age and/or purpose and the ones used by the respondents in your Member State?


If yes, please describe briefly the difference in the definition


Geographical correction

Do you apply correction of your data in order to meet the EU definition? (Yes/No)

 No

IF YES correction of your data is applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Value /Method of calculation

Briefly describe the value of the correction or of the coefficient?

 

Frequency of the revision of the values

Please specify the last time that this value was updated?

 

Main source used

Please define the data source used for the data

 

IF NO, correction of your data is not applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Is a standard operation procedure (SOP) envisaged to solve the above-mentioned differences?

Briefly describe if a correction will be implemented and if so when?

  Data correction is not envisaged.

SOP to correct the differences is not envisaged

Please explain the reasons

 

Any further comments, please provide them here

  The definitions used in Bulgaria for cows and dairy cows are equal to the above mentioned.
8.1.6. Comparability – geographical Heifers

Is there any difference between the above referred definitions based on the age and/or the intended use and the ones used by the respondents in your Member State?


If yes, please describe briefly the difference in the definition


Geographical correction

Do you apply correction of your data in order to meet the EU definition? (Yes/No)

 No

IF YES correction of your data is applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Value /Method of calculation

Briefly describe the value of the correction or of the coefficient?

 

Frequency of the revision of the values

Please specify the last time that this value was updated?

 

Main source used

Please define the data source used for the data

 

IF NO, correction of your data is not applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Is a standard operation procedure (SOP) envisaged to solve the above-mentioned differences?

Briefly describe if a correction will be implemented and if so when?

 Data correction is not envisaged.

SOP to correct the differences is not envisaged

Please explain the reasons

 

Any further comments, please provide them here

 The definitions used for heifers in Bulgaria are equal to the above mentioned.
8.1.7. Comparability – geographical Lambs

Is there any difference between the above referred definitions based on the age and/or the purpose and the ones used by the respondents in your Member State?


If yes, please describe briefly the difference in the definition


Geographical correction

Do you apply correction of your data in order to meet the EU definition? (Yes/No)

 No

IF YES correction of your data is applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Value /Method of calculation

Briefly describe the value of the correction or of the coefficient?

 

Frequency of the revision of the values

Please specify the last time that this value was updated?

 

Main source used

Please define the data source used for the data

 

IF NO, correction of your data is not applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Is a standard operation procedure (SOP) envisaged to solve the above-mentioned differences?

Briefly describe if a correction will be implemented and if so when?

 Data correction is not envisaged.

SOP to correct the differences is not envisaged

Please explain the reasons

 

Any further comments, please provide them here

The definitions in Bulgaria used for goats which have already kidded and goats mated for the first time are equal to the above mentioned.
8.1.8. Comparability – geographical Goats

Is there any difference between the above referred definitions based on the animals status and the ones used by the respondents in your Member State?


If yes, please describe briefly the difference in the definition


Geographical correction

Do you apply correction of your data in order to meet the EU definition? (Yes/No)

 No

IF YES correction of your data is applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Value /Method of calculation

Briefly describe the value of the correction or of the coefficient?

 

Frequency of the revision of the values

Please specify the last time that this value was updated?

 

Main source used

Please define the data source used for the data

 

IF NO, correction of your data is not applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Is a standard operation procedure (SOP) envisaged to solve the above-mentioned differences?

Briefly describe if a correction will be implemented and if so when?

 Data correction is not envisaged.

SOP to correct the differences is not envisaged

Please explain the reasons

 

Any further comments, please provide them here

  The definitions in Bulgaria used for ewes and ewe lambs put to the ram are equal to the above mentioned.
8.1.9. Comparability – geographical Piglets

Is there any difference between the above referred definitions based on the weight and the one used by the respondents in your Member State?


If yes, please describe briefly the difference in the definition


Geographical correction

Do you apply correction of your data in order to meet the EU definition? (Yes/No)

 No

IF YES correction of your data is applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Value /Method of calculation

Briefly describe the value of the correction or of the coefficient?

 

Frequency of the revision of the values

Please specify the last time that this value was updated?

 

Main source used

Please define the data source used for the data

 

IF NO, correction of your data is not applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Is a standard operation procedure (SOP) envisaged to solve the above-mentioned differences?

Briefly describe if a correction will be implemented and if so when?

 Data correction is not envisaged.

SOP to correct the differences is not envisaged

Please explain the reasons

 

Any further comments, please provide them here

The definition of piglets with a live weight of less than 20 kg is used by the Agrostatistics department at MAFF since 2001.
8.1.10. Comparability – geographical Sows

Is there any difference between the above referred definitions based on the covered status of the animals and the ones used by the respondents in your Member State?


If yes, please describe briefly the difference in the definition


Geographical correction

Do you apply correction of your data in order to meet the EU definition? (Yes/No)

 No

IF YES correction of your data is applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Value /Method of calculation

Briefly describe the value of the correction or of the coefficient?

 

Frequency of the revision of the values

Please specify the last time that this value was updated?

 

Main source used

Please define the data source used for the data

 

IF NO, correction of your data is not applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Is a standard operation procedure (SOP) envisaged to solve the above-mentioned differences?

Briefly describe if a correction will be implemented and if so when?

  Data correction is not envisaged.

SOP to correct the differences is not envisaged

Please explain the reasons

 

Any further comments, please provide them here

  The definition of the above mentioned categories breeding sows is used by the Agrostatistics department at MAF since 2001.
8.1.11. Comparability – geographical Slaughter units

Is there any difference between the above referred definitions based on the units provided by the respondents in your Member State?


If yes, please describe briefly the difference in the definition


Geographical correction

Do you apply correction of your data in order to meet the EU definition? (Yes/No)

 No

IF YES correction of your data is applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Value /Method of calculation

Briefly describe the value of the correction or of the coefficient?

 

Frequency of the revision of the values

Please specify the last time that this value was updated?

 

Main source used

Please define the data source used for the data

 

IF NO, correction of your data is not applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Is a standard operation procedure (SOP) envisaged to solve the above-mentioned differences?

Briefly describe if a correction will be implemented and if so when?

 Data correction is not envisaged.

SOP to correct the differences is not envisaged

Please explain the reasons

 

Any further comments, please provide them here

During data collection for slaughtering in Bulgaria, the Agrostatistics Department at MAFF requires to indicate the number of heads and kg carcass weight, allowing quick conversion into the required units.
8.1.12. Comparability – geographical Carcasses

Is there any difference between the above referred definitions based on the animals carcass weight and the ones used by respondents in your Member State?


If yes, please describe briefly the difference in the definition


Geographical correction

Do you apply correction of your data in order to meet the EU definition? (Yes/No)

 No

IF YES correction of your data is applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Value /Method of calculation

Briefly describe the value of the correction or of the coefficient?

 

Frequency of the revision of the values

Please specify the last time that this value was updated?

 

Main source used

Please define the data source used for the data

 

IF NO, correction of your data is not applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Is a standard operation procedure (SOP) envisaged to solve the above-mentioned differences?

Briefly describe if a correction will be implemented and if so when?

  Data correction is not envisaged.

SOP to correct the differences is not envisaged

Please explain the reasons

 

Any further comments, please provide them here

These definitions for carcasses are used by the Agrostatistics Department at MAFF since 2001. The registered slaughterhouses use the same definitions for measuring the carcass weight. Exceptions are some slaughterhouses for pigs, where the carcasses of pigs not boiled but skinned (skin removed). The result of this is lower carcass weight. Currently no correction is applied.
8.1.13. Comparability – geographical Carcasses poultry

Is there any difference between the above referred definition and the one used by respondents in your Member State?


If yes, please describe briefly the difference in the definition


Geographical correction

Do you apply correction of your data in order to meet the EU definition? (Yes/No)

 No

IF YES correction of your data is applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Value /Method of calculation

Briefly describe the value of the correction or of the coefficient?

 

Frequency of the revision of the values

Please specify the last time that this value was updated?

 

Main source used

Please define the data source used for the data

 

IF NO, correction of your data is not applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Is a standard operation procedure (SOP) envisaged to solve the above-mentioned differences?

Briefly describe if a correction will be implemented and if so when?

  Data correction is not envisaged.

SOP to correct the differences is not envisaged

Please explain the reasons

 

Any further comments, please provide them here

The slaughterhouses for poultry use the same definition of carcass for poultry and the carcass measurement occurs under the same conditions.
8.1.14. Comparability – geographical Slaughterhouse

Is there any difference between the above referred definition and the one used by the respondents in your Member State?


If yes, please describe briefly the difference in the definition


Geographical correction

Do you apply correction of your data in order to meet the EU definition? (Yes/No)

 No

IF YES correction of your data is applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Value /Method of calculation

Briefly describe the value of the correction or of the coefficient?

 

Frequency of the revision of the values

Please specify the last time that this value was updated?

 

Main source used

Please define the data source used for the data

 

IF NO, correction of your data is not applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Is a standard operation procedure (SOP) envisaged to solve the above-mentioned differences?

Briefly describe if a correction will be implemented and if so when?

  Data correction is not envisaged.

SOP to correct the differences is not envisaged

Please explain the reasons

 

Any further comments, please provide them here

 
8.1.15. Comparability – geographical Gross indigenous production

Is there any difference between the above referred definition and the one used by the respondents in your Member State?


If yes, please describe briefly the difference in the definition


Geographical correction

Do you apply correction of your data in order to meet the EU definition? (Yes/No)

 No

IF YES correction of your data is applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Value /Method of calculation

Briefly describe the value of the correction or of the coefficient?

 

Frequency of the revision of the values

Please specify the last time that this value was updated?

 

Main source used

Please define the data source used for the data

 

IF NO, correction of your data is not applied in order to meet the EU definition?

Is a standard operation procedure (SOP) envisaged to solve the above-mentioned differences?

Briefly describe if a correction will be implemented and if so when?

  Data correction is not envisaged.

SOP to correct the differences is not envisaged

Please explain the reasons

 

Any further comments, please provide them here

 
8.2. Comparability - over time

See item 8.2.2.
8.2.1. Length of comparable time series

Not requested for reference year 2019. 
8.2.2. First year of availability of comparable data

First year when the statistics were produced with comparable figures for all, most or only the main variables (e.g. total numbers of animals):

 

All

Most

Main variables

Number of periods per year*

Livestock

 

 

Bovines

  2001

 

 

  1

Pigs

  2001

 

 

  1

Sheep and goats

  2001

 

 

  1

Slaughtering

 

 

 

Bovines

  2001  

 

 12

Pigs

  2001  

 

  12

Sheep and goats

  2001  

 

  12

Poultry

  2002

 

 

  12

* Number of periods per year: according to the frequency of statistics, i.e. 12 for monthly data, 4 for quarterly data, 1 for annual data, etc.
8.3. Coherence - cross domain

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
8.4. Coherence - sub annual and annual statistics

Not requested for reference year 2019.
8.5. Coherence - National Accounts

Not requested for reference year 2019.
8.6. Coherence - internal

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.


9. Accessibility and clarity Top
9.1. Dissemination format - News release

Not requested for reference year 2019.
9.2. Dissemination format - Publications

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
9.3. Dissemination format - online database

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
9.3.1. Data tables - consultations

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
9.4. Dissemination format - microdata access

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
9.5. Dissemination format - other

The annual results on the surveys are published in a specific electronic documentс and in some period of time the results are published in an Agricultural reference book.
9.6. Documentation on methodology

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
9.7. Quality management - documentation

The Metadata document is attached.
9.7.1. Metadata completeness - rate

Not requested for reference year 2019.
9.7.2. Metadata - consultations

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.


10. Cost and Burden Top

With each survey, we collect information about the time spent by the respondents to fill the data in the statistical questionnaire
10.1. Burden on the respondents

Estimated burden on the respondents (in hours and minutes) to statistical surveys on livestock and meat (administrative sources are excluded)

Label statistical survey The number of respondents (average) The average time spent by the respondents to provide information (in minutes) The number of occurrences of the statistical survey over the reference year The overall yearly burden on the respondents - TOTAL (in minutes)

Livestock - 1-st November

9372

21

1

196812

Slaughtering statistics - red meat

85

22

13

24310

Slaughtering statistics - poultry meat

22

15

13

5290
         
         
         
         
         
         
         


11. Confidentiality Top
11.1. Confidentiality - policy

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.
11.2. Confidentiality - data treatment

Information requested in the metadata files on statistical processes.


12. Comment Top


Related metadata Top


Annexes Top
BG_Livestock-Questionnaire-2019
Metadata_LS2019
SP1 : Sample survey for November data collection for all types of animals
SP2 : Monthly activity of the Slaughterhouses - red meat
SP 3 : Monthly activity of the Slaughterhouses - poultry meat